Posted Toronto Political Panel: What to do with the crumbling Gardiner?

What to do with Toronto's crumbling Gardiner Expressway?

The sky is falling! Oh, nevermind, it’s just the highway. Wait — that’s not good, either. Matt Gurney, Chris Selley, and Jonathan Goldsbie debate the future of the Gardiner Expressway.

Gurney: Over the last few weeks, I’ve been mightily bemused by the sight (well, sound, really) of city engineers assuring us that the Gardiner is structurally sound, except for those massive chunks of concrete raining down from it. To be fair, the engineers are right — the expressway isn’t going to collapse just because bits of “cosmetic concrete” are falling off. But for the average Torontonian, driving, biking or walking beneath it, if a big hunk of concrete crushes them, the fact that the expressway is structurally sound will be cold comfort. The city is accelerating efforts to refit and reinforce the Gardiner so make it safer for those below, but the added investment has led to discussion about whether this is sending good money after bad. Should we let it crumble, as the Star‘s Rosie DiManno facetiously (I hope!) suggested. Should we do our best Boston impression and bury it? Or should we just keep it as is, but hopefully less crumbly? My personal preference would be to bury it, and I even have some hope that that could be the sort of project Toronto actually could handle. It would be replacing existing infrastructure and improving the waterfront area of the city all at once. Win-win, right? Or are you two meanies going to insist on bursting my bubble by cruelly reminding me that this is Toronto we’re talking about, and nothing is ever as easy as it should be?

Selley: The people want underground expressways, folks. Underground expressways, underground expressways, underground expressways! Of course that’s the best option, until some cynic brings money into the equation. So, let’s face it: Burying the Gardiner in the next 25 years is about as likely as Toronto sending a man to the Moon, which would probably be cheaper. The two viable options are scrambling to maintain it or tearing it down, and I have never seen a hugely compelling case for the latter. The idea that it’s somehow an insurmountable psychological barrier between the lake shore and the city proper seems to have been discredited by how much development we’re currently seeing to the south of it. Paying exorbitant amounts of money to tear something down — $300-million was the mind-boggling estimate the last time around — is politically hideous, and most plans I’ve seen include widening Lake Shore Boulevard to manage (hopefully, but probably not) the extra traffic. That would be something of a barrier too, surely, if we’re worried about such things. The more the waterfront improves, the more I’m convinced we don’t really need a Big Huge Fix for the Gardiner. If cities New York City and Chicago can handle widespread elevated train networks, surely we can make do with a single elevated expressway.

Goldsbie: Meh. To me, the most exciting thing about the prospect of tearing down the Gardiner is the opportunity to render valueless the swath of video billboards that line it. Other than that, I can’t find an especially compelling argument to demolish it. The real barrier to the waterfront is Lake Shore Boulevard, and that probably isn’t going anywhere. The Gardiner itself is an eyesore, but there are things that can be done (and, in some places, are being done) to fix that. I wouldn’t mind if it were placed underground, of course, but I’d rather the City spend those billions on developing new light rail infrastructure than submersing an obnoxious but otherwise adequate bit of elevated roadway. There’s a vast difference, funds-wise, between maintaining the expressway in a state of good repair and getting rid of it entirely, so I’m not sure the “throwing good money after bad” perspective is a fair one.

Gurney: Especially since, if it’s torn down because of its recent troubles, it would be essentially an emergency tear-down, done for reasons of public safety and not as part of an even semi-coherent transport strategy. But while I’m open to more light rail in the city, I do often find my mind turning to tunnels, even if only in my fantastic stuck-in-traffic daydreams. I was recently blown away to hear that the planned 404 extension, which would take the DVP’s upper half well north of Newmarket, includes a provision for high-occupancy lanes. In other words, people have considered bad traffic heading into the city from astonishingly close to Lake Simcoe. That’s mind-boggling. But inevitable, given how the Greater Toronto Area has grown. That’s why I despair to admit that my wistful musings aside, I tend to agree with Chris that the three of us are more likely to follow in the footsteps of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins than Toronto is Boston. Which is scary. The thought of what traffic will look like in this region in 20 years sears my soul.

Selley: Boston is a cautionary example, if anything: their big dig is synonymous with public works projects that go horribly wrong. But the terrifying state of Quebec’s roads is a cautionary example too. Especially since we don’t have to kick back 30% of our expenditures to the mafia, we should be keeping the Gardiner in as good repair as possible. Especially since the thing isn’t going anywhere, falling concrete is nothing to shrug at. It is, rather, something to be very perplexed about. Whatever they’re doing now to get a handle on it, they clearly should have been doing already.

Goldsbie: I’m so grateful that — because I’m fortunate enough to not have to drive a car — none of this ever has to enter my mind on a daily basis. It all sounds phenomenally stressful, as though any benefit of convenience is cancelled out by the attendant unpleasantness of being stuck in traffic. I cycle and take transit everywhere, and while I understand that that’s not a reasonable option for everyone, I do rather wish that it were. Even setting aside environmental concerns, a car-driven culture is unsustainable for the simple reason that our roads don’t have enough space, and that (due to the effect of induced demand) building new roads necessarily leads to more traffic. But it’s not as though the Yonge subway line has excess capacity during rush hour, either. So it’s possible that both problems could best be solved with a new downtown relief subway line connecting out to Scarborough and/or Etobicoke. Funded by tolls, of course. And if drivers would rather not pay to support infrastructure that benefits them, then… I dunno, someone’s gonna have to come up with a better solution than turning Yonge and Bay into one-way streets.